What is "Law" ?

[weishaupt1776]

This is just the official line
http://govpubs.lib.umn.edu/guides/leg.phtml?faq=1

Here's some meat:

• Positive law. "Law actually and specifically enacted or adopted by proper authority for the government of an organized jural society." Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition
  
  *
  
  Prima facie. "At first sight; on the first appearance; on the face of it; so far as can be judged from the first disclosure; presumably; a fact presumed to be true unless disproved by some evidence to the contrary." Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition
  
  *
  
  Official source for the United States laws is Statute at Large and United States Code is only prima facie evidence of such laws. Royer's Inc. v. United States (1959, CA3 Pa) 265 F.2d 615, 59-1 USTC 9371, 3 AFTR 2d 1137.
  
  *
  
  Statutes at Large are "legal evidence" of laws contained therein and are accepted as proof of those laws in any court of United States. Bear v. United States (1985, DC Neb) 611 F Supp 589, affd (1987, CA8 Neb) 810 F.2d 153.
  
  *
  
  Unless Congress affirmatively enacts title of United States Code into law, title is only prima facie" evidence of law. Preston v. Heckler (1984, CA9 Alaska) 734 F.2d 1359, 34 CCH EPD 34433, later proceeding (1984, DC Alaska) 596 F Supp 1158.
  
  *
  
  Where title has not been enacted into positive law, title is only prima facie or rebuttable evidence of law, and if construction is necessary, recourse may be had to original statutes themselves. United States v. Zuger (1984, DC Conn) 602 F Supp 889, affd without op (1985, CA2 Conn) 755 F.2d 915, cert den and app dismd (1985) 474 US 805, 88 L Ed 2d 32, 106 S Ct 38.
  
  *
  
  Even codification into positive law will not give code precedence where there is conflict between codification and Statutes at Large. Warner v. Goltra (1934) 293 US 155, 79 L Ed 254, 55 S Ct 46; Stephan v. United States (1943) 319 US 423, 87 L Ed 1490, 63 S Ct 1135; United States v. Welden (1964) 377 US 95, 12 L 2d 152, 84 S Ct 1082.
  United States Code does not prevail over Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent. Stephan v. United States (1943) 319 US 423, 87 L Ed 1490, 63 S Ct 1135; Peart v. The Motor Vessel Bering Explorer (1974, DC Alaska) 373 F Supp 927.
  
  *
  
  Although United States Code establishes prima facie what laws of United States are, to extent that provisions of United States Code are inconsistent with Statutes at Large, Statutes at Large will prevail. Best Food, Inc. v. United States (1965) 37 Cust Ct 1, 147 F Supp 749.
  
  *
  
  Where there is conflict between codification and Statutes at Large, Statutes at Large must prevail. American Export Lines, Inc. v. United States (1961) 153 Ct Cl 201, 290 F. 2d 925; Abell v. United States (1975) 207 Ct Cl 207, 518 F.2d 1369, cert den (1976) 429 US 817, 50 L Ed 2d 76, 97 S Ct 59.
  
  *
  
  "This distinction between the* Statutes at Large* and the U.S.C. can be better understood in the context of positive and non-positive law.** A non-positive law title of the Code (such as Title 29 -- Labor, for example) consists of* Statutes at Large* which have not been enacted directly to such title, but which have been codified to such title by the Law Revision Council.** On the other hand, in a positive law title (such as Title 10 -- Armed Forces),* Statutes at Large* have been enacted directly to such title.* Because of this distinction, it is not uncommon to find such words as* 'title'* or* 'Act'* appearing in the text of a* Statutes at Large* which have been codified to a non-positive law title of the Code.** While we preserve such language in U.S.C.S., the compilers of the U.S.C. substitute words such as* 'chapter'* or* 'subchapter.'** This substitutionary policy has, on several occasions, resulted in conflict between the U.S.C. and the* Statutes at Large.** For example, in one case it was held that use of the word 'Act' in the* Statutes at Large* prevailed over substitution of the word 'chapter' by the compilers of the Code (see* United States v. Vivian* (1955, CA7 Ill.)* 224 F.2d 53, cert den 350 US 953,* 100 L.Ed. 830,* 76 S.Ct. 340 (1956)).
  
  *
  
  *********** "The driving force behind our policy of adhering to the exact language of the* Statutes at Large* is to present and preserve federal statutes in their most accurate form.** While this effort may lead to confusion when such words as* 'title'* or* 'Act'* appear in the text of a non-positive law section, we attempt to resolve any confusion by either inserting bracketed references in the text of the statute, or by dropping a* 'Reference-in-text'* note to inform the reader what is being referred to by the word or phrase in question.
  
  *
  
  Statutes at Large* v.* United States Code
  
  *
  
  ************ "The following cases either expressly hold or support the proposition that when a conflict exists between the Statutes at Large (or Revised Statutes) and provisions of a non-positive law title of the United States Code, the provisions of the Statutes at Large (or Revised Statutes) prevail:
  
  *
  
  ************ UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT:
  Warner v. Goltra* (1934)* 293 US 155,* 79 L.Ed. 254,* 55 S.Ct. 46;
  Stephan v. United States* (1943)* 319 US 423,* 87 L.Ed. 1490,* 63 S.Ct. 1135;
  Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co.* (1958)* 355 US 373,* 2 L.Ed.2d 340,* 78 S.Ct. 352;
  United States v. Welden* (1964)* 377 US 95,* 12 L.Ed.2d 152,* 84 S.Ct. 1082;
  United States v. Neifert-White Co.* (1968)* 390 US 228,* 19 L.Ed.2d 1061,* 88 S.Ct. 959;
  Goldstein v. Cox* (1970)* 396 US 471,* 24 L.Ed.2d 663,* 90 S.Ct. 671;
  United States v. Bornstein* (1976)* 423 US 303,* 46 L.Ed.2d 514,* 96 S.Ct. 523;
  American Bank & Trust Co. v. Dallas County* (1983)* 463 US 855,* 77 L.Ed.2d 1072,* 103 S.Ct. 3369.
  
  *
  
  ************ SECOND CIRCUIT:
  Leonardi v. Chase Nat. Bank* (1936, CA2 NY)* 81 F.2d 19, cert den 298 US 677,* 80 L.Ed. 1398,* 56 S.Ct. 941;
  United States ex rel. Kessler v. Mercur Corp.* (1936, CA2 NY)* 83 F.2d 178, cert den 299 US 576,* 81 L.Ed. 424, 57 S.Ct. 40;
  United States v. Zuger* (1984, DC Conn)* 602 F.Supp. 889, aff'd without op. 755 F.2d 915, cert den 474 US 805,* 88 L.Ed.2d 32,* 106 S.Ct. 38.
  
  ************ THIRD CIRCUIT:
  Royer's Inc. v. United States* (1959, CA3 Pa.)* 265 F.2d 615;
  Crilly v. SEPTA* (1975, CA3 Pa.)* 529 F.2d 1355;
  United States v. Hibbs* (1976, ED Pa.)* 420 F.Supp. 1365, vacated on other grounds 568 F.2d 347;
  United States v. Gigli* (1984, WD Pa.)* 37 BR 939.
  
  ************ FOURTH CIRCUIT:
  United States v. Shively* (1936, DC Va.)* 15 F.Supp. 107.
  
  ************ FIFTH CIRCUIT:
  Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co.* (1947, CA5 Fla.)* 160 F.2d 787.
  
  ************ SIXTH CIRCUIT:
  Rose v. National Cash Register Corp.* (1983,CA6 Mich.)* 703 F.2d 225, cert den 464 US 939,* 78 L.Ed.2d 317,* 104 S.Ct. 352 (1983);
  Marx v. Centran Corp.* (1984, CA6 Ohio)* 747 F.2d 1536, cert den 471 US 1125,* 86 L.Ed.2d 273,* 105 S.Ct. 2656 (1985);
  United States ex rel. Boyd v. McMurtry* (1933, WD Ky)* 5 F.Supp. 515.
  
  ************ SEVENTH CIRCUIT:
  United States v. Vivian* (1955, CA7 Ill.)* 224 F.2d 53;
  Lode v. Leonardo* (1982, ND Ill.) 557 F.Supp. 675; Young v. IRS* (1984, ND Ind.)* 596 F.Supp. 141;
  United States v. Burgess* (December 1, 1987, ND Ill.)* 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11227,* 1987 WL 39092.
  
  ************ EIGHTH CIRCUIT:
  United States v. Wodtke* (1985, ND Iowa)* 627 F.Supp. 1034.
  
  ************ NINTH CIRCUIT:
  Preston v. Heckler* (1984, CA9 Alaska)* 734 F.2d 1359, 34 CCH EPD P 34433;
  Ryan v. Bilby* (1985, CA9 Ariz.)* 764 F.2d 1325;
  Woner v. Lewis* (1935, DC Cal.)* 13 F.Supp. 45;
  Peart v. The Motor Vessel Bering Explorer* (1974, DC Alaska)* 373 F.Supp. 927.
  
  ************ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT:
  Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transportation* (1988, App. DC)* 854 F.2d 1438.
  ************ OTHER COURTS:
  American Export Lines, Inc. v. United States* (1961, Ct. Cl.)* 290 F.2d 925,* 153 Ct. Cl. 201;
  Best Food, Inc. v. United States* (1956) 37 Cust. Ct. 1, 147 F.Supp. 749.
  
  *
  
  ************ "The two most recent cases which have addressed this matter 1* are* Five Flags Pipe Line Co. v. Department of Transportation* (1988, App. DC)* 854 F.2d 1438* and* United States v. Burgess* (December 1, 1987, ND Ill.)* 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11227,* 1987 WL 39092.* In* Five Flags,* the court stated:* 'Where the language of the* Statutes at Large* conflicts with the language of the* United States Code that has not been enacted into positive law, the language of the* Statutes at Large* controls.'* In* Burgess,* the court, in addressing the constitutionality of criminal prosecution under a statute not published in the* United States Code,* stated that the* Statutes at Large* are 'legal evidence of laws,' while those laws published in the* United States Code* are only prima facie evidence of the laws of the United States."
  

[Lawyerdude]

Your harping about positive law exposes you as the uneducated fraud that you are.
Nobody here will ever find a conflict between the statutes at large and the codes. They statutes at large are merely renumbered and adjusted to be understood with the rest of the code.
Your harping about them helps nobody with their legal problems.
It is a distraction.
It is the fodder of the patriot nutjob community. That community patronizes this forum.

[Lawyerdude]

Always remember this.
Sui Juris nutjobs bashed me when I warned you about the convicted felon running The Dorean Group. Sui Juris came to the defense of this convicted fraudster and banned me. In the mean time people who could have greatly benefitted from my knowledge were deprived of it and exposed to the nutjob mentality of the sycophants of The Dorean Group.

You would not know good advice from a good watermelon.

[charlesa6]

Rebattul!! Iam waiting! At this point in time maybe maybe you guys will find another alternatives solution than the one suggested in this forum.
Weis, any comment.

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Lawyerdude

Your harping about positive law exposes you as the uneducated
fraud that you are. Nobody here will ever find a conflict between the statutes
at large and the codes. They statutes at large are merely renumbered and
adjusted to be understood with the rest of the code. Your harping about them
helps nobody with their legal problems. It is a distraction. It is the fodder
of the patriot nutjob community. That community patronizes this forum.

Ya know, there comes a time in every Bit's existence when he must throw of the
shackles of persecutors, prosecutors, oppressors, repressors, manipulists,
liars, witches, delusionists and fools.

Liardood disputes what the law is, what courts opine, and what dictionaries
define.

Yet he writes volumes of essays, reports, opinions, how-to's, where-to's, and
supposed solutions and methods for litigant-extrication and posts them on them
Web for all to read, consider, contemplate and coordinate.

Either he is a genius or a delusional hypocrite because what he writes here, in
lamentable, cajoling, insulting and demeaning terms is quite contrary to a
sound mind that is able to expound on his vocation; he contradicts, twists,
rolls, and spins a web of mass confusion to misdirect and mislead members and
visitors here who are unfamiliar with lawyerdood's reputation, on Quatloos; here
from previous activity, and with me in private email exchange.

He is also self-opposing, possibly blind to not see that the previous poster,
whom I believe first rather than Layerdood, has provided citations abundant
which are easily and immediately checkable using any number of internet search
engines!

How long do we, the honorable members and visitors of this Forum, have to suffer
with his abuse until the Master of this Board decides that the contribution that
Lawyerdude pretends to offer is not in the best interest LRG, Sui Juris, its
membership nor the anonymous visitors who find us from searching because they
are wanting to Find The Truth and look here to see if we are serious, honorable,
honest and truthful. (full of truth)

[RickA]

Always remember this.
Sui Juris nutjobs bashed me when I warned you about the convicted felon running The Dorean Group. Sui Juris came to the defense of this convicted fraudster and banned me. In the mean time people who could have greatly benefitted from my knowledge were deprived of it and exposed to the nutjob mentality of the sycophants of The Dorean Group.

You would not know good advice from a good watermelon.

You have been asked several times now to tone your responses. Either prove what you say is true or, stop posting here once and for all! I'm actually imploring you to shut your mouth once and for all.

[mrg]

Originally Posted by Lawyerdude

Your harping about positive law exposes you as the uneducated fraud that you are.

Your unsubstantiated slur exposes you as an uneducated boor.

Nobody here will ever find a conflict between the statutes at large and the codes.

Apparently some judges did, you certainly rely a lot on presumption, and that is a pretty broad one at that.

They [sic] statutes at large are merely renumbered and adjusted to be understood with the rest of the code.

First, learn how to proofread before you call someone else uneducated.

Second, that sentence is so poorly constructed and skewed that it makes no sense.

Your harping about them helps nobody with their legal problems.

Your harping helps nobody, period.

It is a distraction.

To whom? To you? What do you care?

It is the fodder of the patriot nutjob community.

The "It" that you are referring to was never clearly delineated or defined when it was introduced, so what exactly is "It?"

That community patronizes this forum.

Are you not now patronizing?

What do those cases Mr. Weisshaupt cited address when they refer to differences between statutes at large and U.S.C.?

Have you read any of them?

Were those quotes from decisions or opinions in those case citations?

If so, why did whatever judge was being quoted write those particular words?

If there are no instances where a Statute at Large and "Code" are at variance, then why have judges written the words I just read?

Did the gentleman who posted them make it all up?

Why is there unannoted "U.S." "code," and annotated "U.S." "code," and why is annotated "U.S." "code," seemingly seldom referenced?

If you have a grudge to settle here, so be it, but I have no idea what else you might constructively be doing here since you have contributed nothing but unabated rancor punctuated with crude expletives.

Are you suggesting the "nutjobs" fold their tents and silently steal away or what?

Are you proposing to "save" the nutjobs from their own folly, or just spewing hyperbolic fluff.

Or are you just another J.A.M.F. in need of a proctocological procedure to remove his head from the place where the sun does not shine.

Perhaps you might just go forth and multiply thyself.

[Admin]

Lawyerdude, what will you have me do? You insult us. You ignore my pleading with you to act honorable. What do you want from us? Are you asking to get banned? Then what, you will come back again saying how us nutjobs on SJ banned you because you were the only beacon of truth. I ask you once again, please engage in civilized discussion and review our terms of service. This is your last warning.

Originally Posted by Lawyerdude

Always remember this.
Sui Juris nutjobs bashed me when I warned you about the convicted felon running The Dorean Group. Sui Juris came to the defense of this convicted fraudster and banned me. In the mean time people who could have greatly benefitted from my knowledge were deprived of it and exposed to the nutjob mentality of the sycophants of The Dorean Group.

You would not know good advice from a good watermelon.

[aksis]

Are State's revised statutes positive law?

I have heard a few places that since they don't have enacting clauses they arn't positive law.

Is this true?